Discriminative stimulus and subjective effects of theobromine and caffeine in humans
Mumford GK, Evans SM, Kaminski BJ, Preston KL, Sannerud CA, Silverman K, Griffiths RR
Psychopharmacology · 61 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- National Institute on Drug Abuse
- Gobierno
- NIDA NIH HHS
- Subvenciones
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA03890)
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 1994-06-01 · Psychopharmacology (Berl) · vol. 115 · número 1-2 · págs. 1–8
- Editorial
- Springer Science+Business Media
- Citado
- 116 citas · más que el 92% de estudios similares · 2.9× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 36 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Coffee research and impacts · Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior · Alkaloids: synthesis and pharmacology
- Palabras clave
- theobromine, caffeine, methylxanthines, drug discrimination, subjective effects, Theobroma cacao, dose-response relationship, individual sensitivity, alertness, energy
- MeSH
- humans, caffeine, theobromine, capsules, cross-over studies, double-blind method, adult, middle aged, female, male, discrimination, psychological
7 autores
- Geoffrey K. Mumford🇺🇸Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Suzette M. Evans🇺🇸National Institute on Drug Abuse
- Barbara J. Kaminski🇺🇸Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Kenzie L. Preston🇺🇸National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Drug Abuse; Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Christine A. Sannerud🇺🇸National Institute on Drug Abuse; Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Kenneth Silverman🇺🇸National Institutes of Health; National Institute on Drug Abuse; Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
- Roland R. Griffiths🇺🇸Johns Hopkins University; Johns Hopkins Medicine
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Theobromine versus placebo discrimination and caffeine versus placebo discrimination were studied in two consecutive experiments in seven volunteers who abstained from methylxanthines. Daily sessions involved PO double-blind ingestion of two sets of capsules sequentially, one of which contained drug and the other placebo. Subjects attempted to identify, and were later informed, which set of capsules contained the drug. In each experiment subjects were exposed to progressively lower doses. Five subjects acquired the theobromine discrimination; the lowest dose discriminated ranged from 100 to 560 mg. All seven subjects acquired the caffeine discrimination; the lowest dose discriminated ranged from 1.8 to 178 mg. A final experiment evaluated subjective effect ratings following 560 mg theobromine, 178 mg caffeine and placebo, which were administered double-blind in capsules once daily, five times each in mixed sequence. Caffeine produced changes in both group and individual ratings (e.g. increased well-being, energy, social disposition and alert). Theobromine did not produce changes in group ratings but changed ratings in some subjects. Across subjects, sensitivity to caffeine discriminative effects in the discrimination experiment correlated significantly with the number and magnitude of caffeine subjective effects in the final experiment. This study documents modest discriminative effects of theobromine in humans, but the basis of the discrimination is unclear. This study suggests that commonly consumed cocoa products contain behaviorally active doses of caffeine and possibly theobromine.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.